So, as Nate Silver said today, the only way Romney wins is if the polls are systematically biased. Thats the only non-crazy argument Romney fans have, and it basically boils down to disagreeing with the weights by race. (I don't care about how many people say they are Democrats, that doesn't matter)

So, I did a bunch of math to see if I could quantify what it means if the weights are wrong. Not many polls have the data needed to determine the weights they are using, but I found a couple national polls and an Ohio poll that gave me everything I needed to play around with it.

National (CBS/NY Times 48-47 Obama, and Pew 47-47 tie)

Both of them are using 46.5% men/53.5% women, which aligns perfectly with the census data (people who told the census that they voted). If we presumed 50/50, it would move things a fraction of a point, but there's no reason to believe that'll happen. For race, CBS is assuming 79% white, 21% non-white. That seems very aggressive to me. Pew has a far more reasonable assumption of 82% white, 18% non-white.

If we presume that turnout will be the same as 2008 (based on census data of people who said they voted), CBS goes to 46-49 Romney, and Pew goes to 46-48 Romney. If we assume 2000 turnout (which is the GOP's desperate hope), Obama's losing by 4 or 5 points in those polls.

I don't think that'll happen, the white vote has been in a steady decline for decades. We also know that this year there's been problems with the national polls being in sharp disagreement with the state polls and the state polls are more accurate, so turning to the Ohio poll from PPP, which had 51-47 Obama:

The gender split seems off, PPP is using 46% men/54% women, but in Ohio men have been in the low to mid 47% range for the last 2 elections. That wont make much of a difference though, because even if we shifted it to 50/50, Obama only loses a point, so we're talking a small fraction of a point here. Anyway, by race if we assume 2008 turnout based on what the census found in 2008 for Ohio, we're at 50-47 Obama. If we use either 2000 or 2004, the poll only shifts to 50-48 Obama.

So, in this critically important swing state, even if the Republicans get their most optimistic presumption that non-white turnout will plummet to 2000 levels (so in Ohio, instead of 14% from 2008 or maybe higher, they are only 11% of the vote), Obama is still winning Ohio. And if he wins Ohio, Romney is probably toast.

__________________ how many emo kids does it take to change a lightbulb? HOW MANY?! none they just sit in the dark and cry

Silver covers that in his column today. That's really Romeny's only chance. He estimates the odds of the polls being biased enough for Romeny to win at 16% based on historical comparisons of polling results and election outcomes dating back to 1968.

This is why some of the other models (votamatic, princeton, etc) are all 95%-99%. They are basically presuming the polls are not biased, and if they aren't, then Romney's going to lose and maybe lose big.

The 538 model apparently believes in the possibility that all the polls are biased, and thats the only component of the model keeping Romney afloat, the model probably thinks there's almost no chance if the polls are not biased.

__________________ how many emo kids does it take to change a lightbulb? HOW MANY?! none they just sit in the dark and cry

538 has been busy. I saw at least 3 updates last evening, so they're working overtime. The latest simulation has Obama winning 83.7% of the time.The popular vote is forecast at 50.6-48.4 or a difference of 2.2 points.

All other states are at least 90% towards one candidate. Friday's polling numbers showed Obama with the lead in 19 of 21 polls done in battleground states. 538 does not show that Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin are competitive. Romney is campaigning in Pennsylvania to try to give himself another way to win electorally.

Obama has at least 80% probability in states that have 281 EC
Obama has at least 65% probability in states that have 303 EC

__________________
-Watching Eddie Podolak

Quote:

Originally posted by Logical
When the boobs are a bouncin, the Chiefs will be trouncin

What the Raiders fan has said is true, our customs are different. What Al Davis has said is unimportant, and we do not hear his words.

1. The non-quantitative media would call the race a "toss up" or "too close to call". In reality we have more information about the race than this. Silver's analysis summarizes this extra information and presents it in an understandable format.

2. Silver's model tells us 1) unless the polls are biased or 2) some event drastically changes the polls, Obama will win. That is valuable information to have.

3. If the polls are biased, all bets are off. As in any model, garbage-in-garbage-out. But that is the fault of the input data, not the fault of the aggregation model.

4. Silver recognizes the possibility that the polls are biased and quantifies it. That is additional information about the status of the race in a historical context.

5. He's been posting this information for months, thereby giving a quantitative snapshot of the race at any point.

6. The model isn't perfect, but it provides a more accurate and more quantitative assessment of the race than any other method.

So the summary is: if the polls are accurate Obama will win. The odds of the polls being inaccurate enough for Romney to win are approximately 16%. I haven't seen a debunking of this shap shot that rises above the level of "I don't like the answer" or cherry picking of certain sub-demographic factoids that ignore the larger picture.

Poor Nate Silver is getting hammered in the press. After the election he's either going to be the happiest person on earth or on suicide watch.

The funny thing is his model could even be right despite a Romney win, but he'll get hammered because people generally suck at statistics. We see big numbers with a percent next to it, and mentally categorize that as a guarantee. There's a joke floating around out there touching on this that says something like, "Obama's up to 81% on 538! Romney's only got like a million to 1 shot!"

__________________ how many emo kids does it take to change a lightbulb? HOW MANY?! none they just sit in the dark and cry

Not true at all. Without knowing one thing about me you assume that I know nothing about the subject. This isn't the first time you have done that. The fact that you didn't even know Rasmussen had state polls leads me to believe you certainly don't know as much as you are leading on.

I don't know much of anything (but I'm very confident about your ignorance on this subject). That said, I'm usually honest about it as I was in the Rasmussen case that you for some reason keep bringing up. When I first brought it up, I admitted uncertainty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by whoman69

Your context is also off. I can guarantee that Billy Beane cannot draw up a sabermetric table, but he knows what to do with the information that is given to him. 538 is a tool that allows one to make sense of conflicting polls. When you have one poll say that a candidate lead by 5 and another that says the lead is only 1 or that the other candidate is ahead, who is right? 538 uses the history of those polls to make that call. They also include economic data, makeup of the electorate in individual states, and a myriad of other factors.

I know how to read an electoral map. I have studied the elections of the past and can talk about trends and contested elections in history.

None of that changes the fact that you don't understand Nate Silver's math.

Quote:

Originally Posted by whoman69

So let's stop pretending that only you are right about everything. You've been proven to be wrong many times, though you would never admit it.

I have no idea what this part is about. This isn't even about me.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton

1. The non-quantitative media would call the race a "toss up" or "too close to call". In reality we have more information about the race than this. Silver's analysis summarizes this extra information and presents it in an understandable format.

2. Silver's model tells us 1) unless the polls are biased or 2) some event drastically changes the polls, Obama will win. That is valuable information to have.

3. If the polls are biased, all bets are off. As in any model, garbage-in-garbage-out. But that is the fault of the input data, not the fault of the aggregation model.

4. Silver recognizes the possibility that the polls are biased and quantifies it. That is additional information about the status of the race in a historical context.

5. He's been posting this information for months, thereby giving a quantitative snapshot of the race at any point.

6. The model isn't perfect, but it provides a more accurate and more quantitative assessment of the race than any other method.

So the summary is: if the polls are accurate Obama will win. The odds of the polls being inaccurate enough for Romney to win are approximately 16%. I haven't seen a debunking of this shap shot that rises above the level of "I don't like the answer" or cherry picking of certain sub-demographic factoids that ignore the larger picture.

I agree with everything here up until the bolder part. That 16% is based on a set of assumptions that could also be wrong.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton

Kotter: "You are lucky I'm truly not the vindictive or psycho type...I'd be careful from now on, and I'd just back the hell off if I were you....otherwise, the Mizzou "extension office" life might get exciting"